The Acts 15 Decree

[Guojing]

Peter and Paul preached the same gospel

I would have to disagree with you on the idea that Peter preached a different gospel than Paul. Nowhere did Peter preach justification by the law.

He didn't mention the Law in Acts in preaching on the Pentecost. Rather he preaches the same as Paul does in Romans 10 "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" Acts 2:21 Nor in Acts 3 in his second sermon did he even mention the Law. Nor in Acts 4. In Acts 10 when Peter preached to Cornelius he said the same as Paul, "Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:43 In Acts 15 he said, "Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." Act 15:7-11

Paul preached the gospel of grace, which is focused on the death burial resurrection (dbr) of Christ, 1 cor 15, taught to him by the ascended Christ Jesus

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Peter was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom (GOK), the gospel that he was taught by Jesus in the flesh. In this GOK, the Jews have to believe in Jesus's identity as the Son of God and the promised Messiah/King to them. This is best summed up by the apostle John when he concluded John 20.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

There is plenty of evidence found in b the 4 Gospels, as well as early Acts, that none of the original 12 understood the significance of the dbr of Jesus.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is one of the best examples of us lacking context. This wasn't a new decree... what happened in Acts 15 was a reversal of a 50 year old decision.

Interesting aside though... I do find it odd that many Christians see this as the only decree like this that applies to them... and then they still ingest blood and don't find out how their meat was slaughtered to make sure it wasn't strangled.

What is remarkable is the content can be ignored. Peter replies to the Pharisees that the Gentiles are purifying themselves by fath. Paul would later tell the Galatians that if they are circumcised Christ will do them no good. Peter describes the Law as a yoke neither we nor our fathers could bear. Jesus describes justification by faith in John 3:16. Peter preached it to the first Gentile converts in Acts 10:43. Paul before Peter got up there called Peter a hypocrite and said later even Barnabas was getting caught up in the maddness. This was a crucial time for an infant Gentile church and Paul's influence cannot be overstated.

 

[bcbsr]

none of the original 12 understood the significance of the dbr of Jesus.

Let's compare that theory with the facts. Every time Peter preached the gospel in Acts he always spoke of the resurrection of Christ.

Acts 2:
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him: "‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’

"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "‘The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstol for your feet." ‘
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Acts 3
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 4
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is "‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Acts 10
You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen— by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

There's no significant difference between what Peter preached above and what Paul preached.

So there!

 

[Guojing]

Let's compare that theory with the facts. Every time Peter preached the gospel in Acts he always spoke of the resurrection of Christ.

Acts 2:
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him: "‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’

"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "‘The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstol for your feet." ‘
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Acts 3
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 4
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is "‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Acts 10
You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen— by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

There's no significant difference between what Peter preached above and what Paul preached.

So there!

Every time Peter used the death of Christ, have you noticed he is accusing his Jewish listeners of murder?

And when he talks about the resurrection, he is using that, not to tell his listeners that they are now forever justified in the eyes of God, but rather, as proof the Jesus is indeed the Son of God and promised messiah.

I don't know about you but that is significantly very different from Paul preached under the Gospel of grace, which is the cross is something to be celebrated, to boast about. Paul wrote numerous times in his letters to the Gentile Church

Romans 3:25 (NLT) For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past

1 Corinthians 1:18 New Living Translation (NLT) 18 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.

Galatians 6:4 New Living Translation (NLT) As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:20 (NASB) and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Colossians 2:14 (NIRV) He wiped out the written Law with its rules. The Law was against us. It opposed us. He took it away and nailed it to the cross.

However, I am saying that Peter was not preaching the same gospel of grace as the Apostle Paul did. As an example, I can imagine if Peter did preach the same message about the cross as Paul did, and if he did mentioned Colossians 2:14. his Jewish listeners would very likely stone him on the spot, given how zealous they are for the law. ( Acts 21:20)

But he didn't have to preach that since Galatians 2 clearly stated

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

In the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is for the circumcised Jews, there is no need for them to believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose again as a sign that they are now justified in the eyes of God.

All they need to do is to acknowledge that Jesus is the promised Messiah and King sent to them. As the Gospel of John concluded in ch 20, remember he was one of the 3 apostles who agreed to confine their ministry to only the Jews,

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Acts 15 Decree

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Turns out those men were from the church at Jerusalem. So Paul, Barnabus and Titus went down to that church to debate the matter. Paul presented his gospel to the leadership at the church of Jerusalem, some of whom held to the beliefs of the Circumcision. Peter completely agreed with Paul that salvation was solely by grace apart from complying to the laws of Moses. But James picked up on something Peter said. Namely speaking to the Circumcision on the leadership team there Peter said, "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10 Peter was referring to their making salvation out to be conditioned upon one's compliance to the Law of Moses. Paul writes extensively on that point in Galatians such as "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." Gal 3:10,11

What James does is try to find a compromise. He literally compromised the gospel. He took Peter's comment of the Law being too hard to keep, and what he did was that instead of rejecting the Law altogether as a means to salvation as Peter and Paul did, he simply cherry picked a few commands from the law and made the Gentile's salvation conditioned upon their compliance to those regulations. James says, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Acts 15:19-20

Consider how arrogant that statement is. Who does James think he is that he could tinker with the gospel in this fashion. Indeed one wonders whether a number of Paul's statements in Galatians were directed at James. Such as "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And Paul's emphasis concerning the origin of his gospel, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12 That in contrast to James' fabricated gospel. For soon thereafter in Galatians Paul references the events of Acts 15. Nor does Paul speak of this decree in any of his epistles, not even in Galatians, but rather in fact often writes contrary to them. James imposes dietary restrictions on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. Paul writes contrary to James' decree, for example, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 And the context indicates that even included meats sacrificed to idols if it didn't bother one's conscience or that of another.

Catholic Councils and Canon Law

Catholicism took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the father of Catholicism, and thus he's their goto guy when it comes to supporting their soteriology and they are the ones who inserted his epistle into the Bible which may end up being a subject of another thread.

Negligence and Hypocrisy in the church at Jerusalem

How was it that the leadership team at the church of Jerusalem included those of this heretical sect of the Circumcision? And that in light of the fact that Peter sided with Paul with regards to the gospel. Peter was not as respected in the church there as some make him out to be. Notice James' statement previously "It is my judgment". James had such a dominant role in that church that others, even the apostles were mere rubber stampers in comparison. Perhaps Peter had a misconception of humility being a trait in which you allow others to walk all over you.

Furthermore consider in Acts 11 when he returned preaching to the Gentile Cornelius, and that even reluctantly. This is how he was welcomed in his own church, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Acts 11:3,4 Note the prejudice. Obviously if even an apostle has to come up with an excuse to preach to the Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not welcomed in that church. This despite the fact that James himself hypocritically writes, "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1 Paul writes, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" Rom 10:12 and he preaches the same gospel to both. But in the church of Jerusalem there was reckoned a difference between Jew and Gentile. James even made a distinction between the two in his tinkering with the gospel. And then Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians, abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles, and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews, along with John and James. "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Though while they (James, Peter and John) agreed to this, Paul apparently didn't agree. For he continued to minister to both Jew and Gentile alike and never even mentioned the decree in any of his epistles even though in Galatians he spoke of the meeting.

Peter Rebuked for Fear and Hypocrisy

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal 2:11,12

Likely what happened here is that James wanted to make sure that the regulations he had imposed on the Gentile Christians were being observed. Interesting to note, first of all, who did James send? He sent the very category of people who had been preaching a false gospel to begin with - the group of the circumcision. Likely the same false pharisaical brothers among the leadership in Jerusalem who had insisted, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Acts 15:5 (Kind of an - in your face Paul - moment) Paul noticed that Peter was apparently afraid of these guys. Doesn't say why he was afraid, but it appears that through James' influence and his circumcision cronies, and Peter's fear and insecurity lead to the rise of Catholicism. If Paul had taken a more direct approach from the start in dealing with that sect, rebuking James directly for what he explicitly said in tinkering with the gospel, as he had publicly rebuked Peter for what Peter only implied by his actions, Catholicism and the rise of other Neo-Circumcision sects, may have been rooted out from the start. Nonetheless in his battle against the Circumcision Paul has left us with ammunition in his epistles against such sects.

I think you are confusing Roman Catholicism with the Catholic Church. They are not the same teachings. They have some similarities but are actually in schism of one another over doctrinal issues.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Catholicism took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the father of Catholicism, and thus he's their goto guy when it comes to supporting their soteriology and they are the ones who inserted his epistle into the Bible which may end up being a subject of another thread

James is the father of the Catholic Church? I can’t find anywhere that they claim this. Is this your personal conclusion? If you are referring to the Roman church they maintain that it was actually Peter who was the head of the council in Jerusalem and Peter who was the first pope and Holy See who was given “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” by Jesus in Matthew 16.

Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians, abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles, and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews

Peter established both the churches in Antioch and Rome which were both gentile churches. So no he didn’t abandon his responsibilities to the Gentiles.

You seem to be pitting scripture against scripture which was compiled by the Catholic Church. If you can’t trust all scripture or the church that compiled them how can you trust any of them? It is very evident that God intended the gospel to be spread throughout the entire world so would He allow the Bible to be compromised in such a way as to mislead everyone from the truth into believing a false gospel? The same can be said about His Church.

 

[bcbsr]

Every time Peter used the death of Christ, have you noticed he is accusing his Jewish listeners of murder?

And when he talks about the resurrection, he is using that, not to tell his listeners that they are now forever justified in the eyes of God, but rather, as proof the Jesus is indeed the Son of God and promised messiah.

Let's compare with Paul.

PAUL
Acts 17:30-21 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

PAUL
Acts 13:26-30,41
Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead ... "’Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.’"

In fact notice in that same sermon Paul appears to borrow from Peter's Acts 2 sermon
PAUL
Acts 13:34-37
The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: "’I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’ So it is stated elsewhere: "’You will not let your Holy One see decay.’ "For when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

PETER
Acts 2:26-32
David said about him: "’I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’ "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

James is the father of the Catholic Church? I can’t find anywhere that they claim this. Is this your personal conclusion? If you are referring to the Roman church they maintain that it was actually Peter who was the head of the council in Jerusalem and Peter who was the first pope and Holy See who was given “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” by Jesus in Matthew 16.



Peter established both the churches in Antioch and Rome which were both gentile churches. So no he didn’t abandon his responsibilities to the Gentiles.

You seem to be pitting scripture against scripture which was compiled by the Catholic Church. If you can’t trust all scripture or the church that compiled them how can you trust any of them? It is very evident that God intended the gospel to be spread throughout the entire world so would He allow the Bible to be compromised in such a way as to mislead everyone from the truth into believing a false gospel? The same can be said about His Church.

Not that I'm trying to drag this off topic but Peter preached to the Gentiles in Caesarea. The church spread out from Jerusalem all the way to Antioch (Syria), while I don't know who was in charge there were five elders there that commissioned the 3 missionary journeys of Paul. The gospel had spread to Phoenicia and Cyprus when Paul started his first missionary journey. Peter and the other Apostles spent most of their time in Jerusalem for quite some time.

Peter often spoke for the other Apostles so him standing up at the Jerusalem council would can as a surprise to no one. The idea that James represented some rival faction just doesn't jive with any of the facts.

 

[bcbsr]

I think you are confusing Roman Catholicism with the Catholic Church. They are not the same teachings. They have some similarities but are actually in schism of one another over doctrinal issues.

Nope, not confusing the two. While google says "those Catholics in communion with Rome have been dubbed “Roman Catholics.” The Eastern Orthodox say that they are THE “catholic” ones but call themselves Orthodox. That's the basic difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic." In fact no one outside of "Eastern Orthodox" that I'm aware of calls Eastern Orthodox "Catholic".

 

[bcbsr]

Peter established both the churches in Antioch and Rome which were both gentile churches. So no he didn’t abandon his responsibilities to the Gentiles.

Wrong! Peter didn't "establish" either church. Peter was still tarrying in Jerusalem when those churches were established.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not that I'm trying to drag this off topic but Peter preached to the Gentiles in Caesarea. The church spread out from Jerusalem all the way to Antioch (Syria), while I don't know who was in charge there were five elders there that commissioned the 3 missionary journeys of Paul. The gospel had spread to Phoenicia and Cyprus when Paul started his first missionary journey. Peter and the other Apostles spent most of their time in Jerusalem for quite some time.

Peter often spoke for the other Apostles so him standing up at the Jerusalem council would can as a surprise to no one. The idea that James represented some rival faction just doesn't jive with any of the facts.

The decision in Acts 15 was unanimous. No one opposed it including the Holy Spirit according to the scriptures. So it would seem that James was well within his boundaries to make such an assertion.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wrong! Peter didn't "establish" either church. Peter was still tarrying in Jerusalem when those churches were established.

Scriptural reference please

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope, not confusing the two. While google says "those Catholics in communion with Rome have been dubbed “Roman Catholics.” The Eastern Orthodox say that they are THE “catholic” ones but call themselves Orthodox. That's the basic difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic." In fact no one outside of "Eastern Orthodox" that I'm aware of calls Eastern Orthodox "Catholic".

You need to study up the the actual events of the schism. The church had 5 head members of the council called the Pentarchy who governed the churches in their jurisdiction. These 5 bishops were the bishop of Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Jerusalem. When the schism took place because of Rome’s claim to papal supremacy among a few other issues all 4 of the other bishops of the Pentarchy rejected Rome’s claim and adopted the name Orthodox which means traditional. Rome claims they excommunicated all the others and the Orthodox churches claim they excommunicated Rome. The way a council works is the minority cannot overrule the majority. Rome was completely alone in their claim and it was rejected by the majority. Hence Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. You can find this information at these links. Notice these are from britannica.com which is a secular source of reference with an impeccable reputation for only giving the facts. Britanica is accepted as evidence in a court of law in many countries around the world. The fact that they are a secular source sets them apart from any partiality towards either side of the argument.

https://www.britannica.com/eventSchism-of-1054


Pentarchy | Christianity

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope, not confusing the two. While google says "those Catholics in communion with Rome have been dubbed “Roman Catholics.” The Eastern Orthodox say that they are THE “catholic” ones but call themselves Orthodox. That's the basic difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic." In fact no one outside of "Eastern Orthodox" that I'm aware of calls Eastern Orthodox "Catholic".

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Roman Church and hasn’t been since Rome’s excommunication in 1054AD. The Eastern Church is not the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[bcbsr]

Scriptural reference please

Well if you're going to be like that, note that you yourself provided no scriptural evidence of your conjectures. But as for evidence of my position:

Acts 8:1 On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

Ac 11:19,20 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.

The church at Rome was already established when Paul wrote Romans, and nowhere in Romans 16 does he mention Peter. It was likely established by Priscilla and Aquila in whose house the church met. Rom 16:3-6 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house."

In fact according to Galatians 2 Peter restricted himself to ministry to the Jews. Ga 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Nor does Peter even address Rome in 1Peter "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia"

Let's compare that with your "proof" which is none.

 

[mark kennedy]

The decision in Acts 15 was unanimous. No one opposed it including the Holy Spirit according to the scriptures. So it would seem that James was well within his boundaries to make such an assertion.

I had often wondered why he would be the one to speak up at the close. Then it occurred to me that James was in the royal line of the House of David. I have no real source material for it but it might have been customary for someone like a king or a local magistrate of oversee assemblies of that nature. He was probably just echoing what the Apostles had decided among themselves and obviously, Paul was the perfect Apostles to write the letter since he and Barnabas founded the churches in Galatia. Paul recognized James as a leader but says little beyond that. His letter to the Galatians is scathing and there is no mention of eating blood or things strangled. The sect of Judaizers in Jerusalem had sown their seeds of descent, I think Paul was the one most instrumental in waking them out of their fog. The Judaizers had dogged Paul's steps in Galatia, getting him stoned and left for dead at one point. It could be the Apostles had been lulled into a false sense of security since they were professing Christ and appeared to be joining their ranks. Paul had seen first hand what they were really like and he must have just been livid when he seen Peter trying to accommodate them. He practically apologizes that the Holy Spirit fell on them at Caesarea, Paul would have nothing to do with any of that. Paul rebuked Peter sharply for it and instead of getting indignant, Peter loved him for it. If you remember, Peter had made some mistakes before, he knew how to take a well deserved rebuke from time to time.

God has a thing for the most unlikely candidate, Paul is a classic example. How ironic and unexpected that a Pharisee would be the one to rebuke the influence of the Pharisees.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[RDKirk]

Scriptural reference please

And the reference for your assertion as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well if you're going to be like that, note that you yourself provided no scriptural evidence of your conjectures. But as for evidence of my position:

Acts 8:1 On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

Ac 11:19,20 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.

The church at Rome was already established when Paul wrote Romans, and nowhere in Romans 16 does he mention Peter. It was likely established by Priscilla and Aquila in whose house the church met. Rom 16:3-6 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house."

In fact according to Galatians 2 Peter restricted himself to ministry to the Jews. Ga 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Nor does Peter even address Rome in 1Peter "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia"

Let's compare that with your "proof" which is none.

If I walk up to someone and tell them about Jesus did I just establish a church? The churches in Antioch and Rome have always claimed to be established by Peter. Are you going to call them a liar with no proof at all? Is that how a Christian should conduct himself?

Peter only preached to the Jews? Was Cornelius and his household Jews? Acts 9:32-35 Peter goes to Lydda and Sharon which was predominantly Gentiles and preached to everyone there and all of them believed. Then immediately afterwards went to Joppa also a predominately gentile area and many believed.

Your just taking bits and pieces of scriptures and twisting them to fit your agenda. You know full well that Peter went to Antioch because you posted it in the OP. WHERE DID PAUL REBUKE PETER? What was he doing there, just hanging out?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I had often wondered why he would be the one to speak up at the close. Then it occurred to me that James was in the royal line of the House of David. I have no real source material for it but it might have been customary for someone like a king or a local magistrate of oversee assemblies of that nature. He was probably just echoing what the Apostles had decided among themselves and obviously, Paul was the perfect Apostles to write the letter since he and Barnabas founded the churches in Galatia. Paul recognized James as a leader but says little beyond that. His letter to the Galatians is scathing and there is no mention of eating blood or things strangled. The sect of Judaizers in Jerusalem had sown their seeds of descent, I think Paul was the one most instrumental in waking them out of their fog. The Judaizers had dogged Paul's steps in Galatia, getting him stoned and left for dead at one point. It could be the Apostles had been lulled into a false sense of security since they were professing Christ and appeared to be joining their ranks. Paul had seen first hand what they were really like and he must have just been livid when he seen Peter trying to accommodate them. He practically apologizes that the Holy Spirit fell on them at Caesarea, Paul would have nothing to do with any of that. Paul rebuked Peter sharply for it and instead of getting indignant, Peter loved him for it. If you remember, Peter had made some mistakes before, he knew how to take a well deserved rebuke from time to time.

God has a thing for the most unlikely candidate, Paul is a classic example. How ironic and unexpected that a Pharisee would be the one to rebuke the influence of the Pharisees.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes Paul is probably my favorite apostle although I’m really surprised that Barnabas was not named as an apostle. Perhaps he joined after Jesus’ ministry. I’m curious whatever became of Mathias? To my knowledge I don’t recall him doing anything after being named as an apostle that is recorded in the scriptures.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And the reference for your assertion as well.

I don’t see any conclusive evidence that Peter started either church in the scriptures. The churches themselves claim that Peter was the one who established them. I just don’t see the point in calling them a liar without any evidence.